Question 168

Bryan Garcia

unread,

Mar 7, 2010, 6:42:13 PM3/7/10

to utexas-cs313k-spring2010

doesn't this yield an unbelievably massive number of seconds?

A.J. Gardner

unread,

Mar 7, 2010, 7:16:31 PM3/7/10

to Bryan Garcia, utexas-cs313k-spring2010

Well, it's not *completely* unbelievable. But yes.

A.J. Gardner

unread,

Mar 7, 2010, 7:21:12 PM3/7/10

to Bryan Garcia, utexas-cs313k-spring2010

But for slightly less-believably large numbers, see the Ackermann
function given reasonable inputs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function#Expansion

Bryan Garcia

unread,

Mar 7, 2010, 7:40:50 PM3/7/10

to utexas-cs313k-spring2010

It really is when the time in years extends beyond our knowledge of
the age of the universe some odd 14 billion years ago.

J Strother Moore

unread,

Mar 7, 2010, 10:14:46 PM3/7/10

to wearyddr...@yahoo.com, utexas-cs313...@googlegroups.com

When answering Question 168, I would recommend
using scientific notation to express the answer.
It is useful to express the answer in years. But
I'm not expecting an exact answer, just an
approximate one.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward